Analysis

Bridget KendallDiplomatic correspondent, BBC News, St Petersburg

After two days of talks, the most powerful countries in the world were still unable to speak with one voice on Syria. The French President Francois Hollande has been a stalwart supporter of taking action. UK Prime Minister David Cameron and the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan have also both firmly been in favour of action on Syria, as have the Saudis, long opposed to President Assad.

But the G20 host, President Vladimir Putin, has proved a formidable opponent and his claim is that the balance of opinion was behind him. Among G20 nations, India, Argentina, South Africa and Russia's Security Council ally - China - are clearly against punitive strikes. Alongside them, others are also uneasy at military action without UN approval.

At his press conference, you could sense President Obama's emotion, exhaustion and frustration. For all the intense lobbying behind the scenes, where it seems David Cameron has been playing a key role, there is still more work to be done to build the international coalition that Mr Obama wants.

China and Russia, which have refused to agree to a UN Security Council resolution against Syria, insist any military action without the UN would be illegal.

Mr Putin said the discussions about Syria on Thursday evening had gone on well past midnight.

He added that he had had a one-to-one meeting with Mr Obama in which they had discussed Syria.

Both men had listened to the other's position but had not agreed, he said.

Mr Putin said he believed a majority of the populations in countries supporting military action were against it.

Meanwhile French President Francois Hollande, who has been a firm proponent of intervention, said he would await for a report from UN weapons inspectors before taking a decision on military action.

The inspectors' findings are not due to be made public until the week beginning 15 September - possibly even later.

'Provocation'

Also speaking at the end of the summit, Mr Obama said there was a "unanimous" view that chemical weapons had been used in Syria.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Obama says he had a "candid and constructive conversation" with President Putin

He also said most leaders present at the summit thought it was most likely that the regime of Mr Assad was responsible.

Mr Obama argued action was required even when the Security Council was paralysed, as the international consensus against the use of chemical weapons had to be upheld.

However, Mr Putin described the use of chemical weapons as "a provocation on the part of the militants who are expecting to get support from outside".

British Prime Minister David Cameron said the UK had "made available additional evidence of cloth and soil samples which underline the now overwhelming picture of a war crime" on 21 August.

Mr Cameron said that, given the depth of international divisions, the "summit was never going to reach agreement".

“Start Quote

To some, watching President Obama wrestling with difficult issues will make him a more authentic proponent of a tough choice. But it may not be the best frame of mind for a man who has to sell a plan like his whole reputation rests on it”

But he added that if there were only a response to the crisis through the UN Security Council, that would mean the UK "contracting out its morality and foreign policy to the potential of a Russian veto".

While the UK, Canada and Turkey all support Mr Obama's call for action, the only leaders at the G20 meeting to commit to force in Syria are the US and France.

Correspondents in St Petersburg say opponents of US military intervention appear to far outnumber supporters within the G20.

A joint statement from the US, Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and the UK called for "a strong international response" over Syria.

Recognising that the UN Security Council had been paralysed over the issue, the statement added the "world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability".

What is the G20?

Formed in 1999, the "group of 20" comprises the 19 leading national economies, plus the EU

The 2008 financial crisis and the rapid rise of China, India and Brazil has led the G20 to replace the G8 as principal global economic forum

Leaders generally meet annually, with several other lower-level meetings each year

In his comments to reporters on Friday, Mr Obama did not make clear what he would do if the US Congress decided against military action in a vote expected next week.

A poll commissioned by the BBC and ABC News suggested more than one-third of Congress members were undecided whether or not to back military action - and a majority of those who had made a decision said they would vote against the president.

The US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said that the US had "exhausted the alternatives" to military action.

She said that according to American estimates, the 21 August attack had "barely put a dent" in Syria's chemical weapons stockpile.

Aid pledges

Also on Friday, the UN appealed for more aid for people in Syria, and also for the estimated two million Syrians who have fled their country.

UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos told the BBC that donor countries should "look again" at their contributions and be "as generous as they can".

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

David Cameron: "This summit was never going to reach agreement on what action was needed on Syria"

Mr Cameron announced on Friday that some countries at the G20 had agreed measures to speed up the delivery of aid, including lifting bureaucratic obstacles such as custom rules.

He said earlier that the UK would give an additional £52m ($80m) in aid for Syria - much of it for medical training and equipment to help civilians targeted by chemical attacks.

However, correspondents point out that the delivery of aid is complicated by the need to negotiate with armed groups on the ground.

Meanwhile, on the ground in Syria, rebels have withdrawn after briefly entering an ancient Christian town north of Damascus, the main opposition alliance has said.

Free Syrian Army (FSA) units captured military positions outside Maaloula after heavy clashes with government forces and militiamen on Thursday.

Also on Friday, the US embassy in Lebanon said that it would be evacuating its non-essential staff.

The move was prompted by "threats to US mission facilities and personnel," a statement said. The US Consulate General in the Turkish city of Adana is also withdrawing non-essential staff.

Comment number 445.

I'm not surprised Russia'a position is doubtless based on utter selfishness, and out governments the same. Blair is still posing and preening with the rest of them (on the international stage!).

Astonishing thing is if you read Blair's analysis it is at times factually incorrect and based on wrong analysis. Thinks war will help reduce extremism! Can you vote for leaders that shallow and posing?

Comment number 442.

George Evans6th September 2013 - 17:01

Remember when the UN fought in Korea to prevent the country from being over run by Chinese communists? Whatever happened to that UN to turn it into the toothless talking shop it is today? Remember Ruanda, Bosnia and now Syria and ask yourselves where is the UN?

Comment number 440.

gingerprince6th September 2013 - 17:00

David Camerson simply does not understand the mood of the UK people. We are not interested in any more foreign intervention follies, defending "red lines" in the sand or boosting the political ego of our PM. As a consequence of this recession and our experiences in Iraq we know we can no longer afford the costs nor the casualties. Time the PM and that phony Tony Blair got the message.

Comment number 439.

Norman Brooke6th September 2013 - 17:00

The problem is that the more the USA engages aggressive action the more people will justify attacks on it. Now I opposed utterly the horror of 9-11. But if the USA attacks instead of engaging in diplomacy then it will make actions like 9-11 appear more justifiable. Indeed if America does go ahead with military action, Wall street the financiers of war and poverty should be legitimate targets.

Comment number 438.

Phil6th September 2013 - 17:00

398.RYGnotB wrote:

389. Phil Putin is supplying arms to Syria - I think by condemning him and stopping him from doing that would help the people of Syria

Agreed... but who has enough political clout to actually do that? And who's to say that a country like China won't enter more into the fray and decide to grab something for themselves by offering to supply Syria with weapons?

Comment number 437.

Tim6th September 2013 - 17:00

Give it up the UK does not want another war no matter how much the leaders rant. WE dont trust you anymore. One dodgy dossier was enough now you have no credibility. Show us the proof beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even then let the UN deal with it thats what there there for.

Comment number 436.

FlashMagski6th September 2013 - 17:00

421.PrecariatJust now

Putin Nuke America, They need it for all the American Indians they killed.

Do you realise what you have said, how close we came to a nuclear war when JFK turned back Soviet ships en-route to Cuba. If the USA deployed nukes there would be no Russia, no Europe, no Middle East you must be a complete idiot to think that Russia could overthrow the US get a life !

Comment number 433.

Preston6th September 2013 - 16:59

Where is an independent, trusted, international investigative body that can make the determination as to which party in the Syrian conflict actually launched those chemical weapons? The UN's mandate was never to determine who used CW - merely to confirm they were used.

My fear is that the "truth" will only become revealed AFTER bombs have fallen.

Comment number 431.

paul6th September 2013 - 16:57

It is not the USA's place to fix the mideast in this case, everyone has left, where is the Arab league? where are the other countries from Europe who up to a month ago were so strong on pushing armed response? - all gone. now a push for the united states to step in? Yes Assad was no prince- but the country was more western than most in the region. what will replace it? A Somalia? an Libya? Iran?

Comment number 430.

Ilyas khanComment number 430 is an Editors' Pick6th September 2013 - 16:57

I think whatever the case in Syria, the world can no more afford wars. Firstly all the countries stress on the Syria's government to find out who is responsible for such action, after that shows strict response to Syria, not by war, by sanctions, by banning and much more, but please avoid wars.

Comment number 429.

ML6th September 2013 - 16:56

The US complains about Russia using its veto on the UN Security Council. Excuse me, but just how many times has the US used its veto when charges have been brought against Israel for violating peace treaties by building on occupied lands? What's good for the goose...

BBC links

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.